Notting Hill Genesis (202105452)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105452

Notting Hill Genesis

17 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by her neighbour.
2. Reports of a fence and shed built by her neighbour, which she asserted caused a safety issue.
3. Request to add her husband to the tenancy agreement.
4. Alleged outstanding repair issues, specifically the water ingress from the above property, works to the kitchen / kitchen cabinets, and the damp and mould in her property.
5. Request to be granted a direct offer for a new home.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a two-bedroom flat occupied by a family of six. The landlord is aware that the property is overcrowded.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the tenancy agreement but understands that the resident has been a tenant for more than ten years.

Summary of events

It appears that the resident first reported her dissatisfaction about her neighbour to the landlord on 27 July 2020. Within her correspondence, she explained:
1. The neighbour living beneath her property had built a fence in the communal garden. She stated that since doing so, her children were unable to stand on the balcony as the neighbour would shout at them when they did. She was also unable to retrieve her laundry when it fell.
2. When her children played between 7pm and 8pm, the neighbour would knock at her door and ask them to stop.
3. The neighbour was now building a shed which was very close to her window and created a safety risk. She suggested that someone could climb on to the shed and gain access her balcony or living room. She had tried to approach the neighbour about this, but this had been unsuccessful.
4. She wished to know whether the fence or shed in the communal garden was acceptable, and whether the neighbour was provided with planning permission.
The resident requested the landlord’s support in investigating this matter.
On 20 September 2020 the resident wrote further to the landlord. She stated:
1. She received a phone call on 5 August 2020, after her complaint on 27 July 2020, despite the landlord’s complaints policy suggesting that she would receive acknowledgement within two working days, and a written response in 10 working days. During this call, it was made clear that the complaint would not be investigated.
2. She was concerned for her life and that of her family. She expected the landlord to at least get back to her. She reiterated that her family were unable to stand at the balcony as the neighbour watched and videoed them. She was also concerned about opening the window at night in fear that someone could gain access via the shed. She stated that every time she addressed her neighbour, her car was scratched. She now had to have a video camera in the car.
3. Having three children in a two-bedroom flat, she felt that her living situation was being made worse as they were not even able to enjoy the balcony.
4. There were several repairs going back over a year which remained outstanding. She had also been waiting for the landlord to add her husband to the tenancy agreement for almost a year.
5. She wished to know if a risk assessment had been completed for the shed and fence.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord acknowledged this further complaint on 22 September 2020 and advised that it had been allocated to the appropriate team.
On 15 October 2020 the Float Housing Officer (FHO) provided the resident with a complaint response. It advised that following its telephone conversation with the resident, it could advise that its legal team had sent a formal notice to the neighbour advising that both the fence and shed needed to be removed by the end of September 2020. It explained that this was as the neighbour had breached the tenancy clauses regarding home improvements and also planning laws. The landlord noted that it had heard back from the neighbour who had requested that it extend the removal date and explained that it was considering this.
It appears that on 5 January 2021 the resident provided the landlord with a further complaint. She stated:
1. She recognised that the issue with the shed could take time to resolve but suggested that this put her family at risk until this was removed and ignored the point of her complaint in the first place. She noted that the neighbour had requested an extension of the removal date and expressed that she had not been informed of when this new date would likely be.
2. Not all of her complaint points had been considered. She had initially been advised that only the matter regarding the shed/fence would be addressed in the stage one response and that the remaining issues would be picked up once a new Housing Officer (HO) was assigned. This remained outstanding.
3. Her new HO did not make contact until she experienced issues with her lights on 12 November 2020. She asserted that upon speaking to the HO, he was unaware of her previous complaint points.
4. She had been waiting for her kitchen ceiling to be plastered for over a year, and her kitchen cabinet doors were meant to be changed as the wood was rotting. She stated that this remained outstanding. She also experienced a leak into her bathroom light at least once or twice a month and had reported this for many years. The resident explained that she had been dealing with mould in the property for some time too.
The resident expressed that given the repair issues, threats to her safety, and feeling uncomfortable in her home, she sought a transfer to a new property.
It is unclear whether any contact was made with the resident over the following weeks. The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that on 21 January 2021 the HO did begin completing an application for the resident to be offered a management transfer. The resident was also encouraged to complete a property transfer application.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident contacted the HO on 4 February 2021 to establish whether there had been any progress with her application. She shared her dissatisfaction on the following day with the Housing Operations Manager (HOM) as she noted that while she had sent the form some weeks prior, this had still not been approved. She requested that her situation be treated as a matter of urgency, given the grief she had endured, the overcrowding, and the repair issues. She requested a formal response in order to bring her matter to this Service.
On 18 March 2021 the HO sought further information from the resident which she provided on the same day. She was advised that a decision on her transfer application would be made on 26 March 2021. The resident received a further update on 24 March 2021 to advise that her documents had been passed to the HOM for authorisation and that once this was complete, a member of staff would be in touch.
On 7 April 2021 following a telephone call with the landlord, the resident wrote to the (newly appointed) HOM. She stated that while the HOM had agreed to speak with her manager and to return to her, she wished to reiterate her situation. She stated:
1. In October 2020 the landlord had only responded to her reports of the neighbour’s shed / fence. She had been advised that when the new Housing Officer started, her other concerns raised in her stage one complaint would be investigated, however this did not happen.
2. She had been informed on 5 January 2021 by the HO that approval was being sought for a direct offer. She was therefore required to complete another transfer application form, despite advising that she had already been approved for transfer previously. Upon speaking with the HO on 9 February 2021, he advised that this had been approved, and that he required 2-4 weeks to find a suitable property. She explained that she contacted the HO three weeks later, however was advised that he was waiting on approval from the HOM.
3. Upon requesting that she be copied into future emails, she noted that the HO had not mentioned that she required a direct offer. She stated that she questioned why the HO was chasing approval of her transfer application only. She explained she was devastated to hear from the HO that the previous HOM had not approved a direct offer. The HO apologised for the misinformation.
4. She therefore sought clarity on:

Whether her complaint was ever considered and whether any advice had been given on how to respond.
Why her complaint had not been responded to, despite her request on 5 February 2021.
Why she was asked to complete another transfer form, if it was not for a direct offer as advised.
Why she had been advised that a direct offer had been approved and why she had waited 14 weeks.
Why she had not been advised that she needed to collect evidence of the harassment which took place. She confirmed that she had been advised by the landlord that she needed to report incidents to the police but not that no action would be taken without evidence.

On 8 April 2021 the HOM apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused and advised the resident that her complaint would be escalated to stage two of its complaints process. It advised that it would respond to the queries in its complaint response.
On 20 April 2021 the Housing Operations Manager (HOM) provided the resident with its stage two response. It stated:
1. Upon being notified of the fence and shed, an inspection was arranged, and the case was referred to its legal team. It advised that the legal team were taking steps to obtain an injunction for the structure to be removed. For her security, however, the resident was advised to continue to lock her balcony door and windows to ensure that the property was secure.
2. In order for it to act on the allegations of videoing, vandalism, and intimidation, it needed supporting evidence from the police. It advised the resident to first contact the police where illegal activity was occurring. It would then collate evidence / the findings and move forward on this basis. It noted that when it had last spoken to the resident, she confirmed that there had been no recent incidents.
3. It apologised that the resident’s husband had not yet been added to the tenancy agreement. The HO would make contact to begin the procedure by 27 April 2021.
4. It could confirm that the leak in the property above had been rectified. The kitchen cabinet doors had also been inspected and the resident had been referred for the kitchen replacement programme for 2022 /2023. Any urgent repairs required could be reported, nonetheless. In respect of the damp and mould, the HOM noted that the resident’s property had been surveyed and that she was waiting for a date to commence works. It stated that the HO would keep her updated.
5. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage two and that the resident had been wrongly advised that she would be granted a Band A direct offer. It advised that its internal staff and system changes had negatively impacted its service. It confirmed that the resident was actually a Band B.
In recognition of the delay in progressing the stage two complaint, and the misinformation, the HOM confirmed an award of £50 would be made to the resident, as well as an additional £150 for the stress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident was sent an application form for joint tenancy on 21 April 2021.
It appears that on 4 August 2021 a repair order was raised as there was still water ingress in and around the ceiling of the bathroom, and into the light fitting at the resident’s property. Notes suggest that the landlord attended on or around 4 September 2021 and identified the leak. It was suspected that this was from the bathroom in the above flat, however the landlord was unable to gain access.
On 10 September 2021 the (new) HOM wrote to the resident with a further complaint response. It stated, following a telephone call with the resident on the same day:
1. It could confirm that the previous leak impacting the resident had been resolved, but another area had now been identified which was now causing the water ingress. Works had been scheduled for repair for the following day (11 September 2021). It noted that the leak had impacted the light in the kitchen which meant she was unable to use it. The HOM advised that once the property had dried out, it would be in a position to reinstate this.
2. It could not see that the resident had completed the application form for the joint tenancy. It apologised if the resident had already sent this and advised her to resend the form if she had.
3. It noted that the resident suspected her neighbour of scratching her car and that she was working with the police to come to a resolution. The landlord requested the crime reference number so that it could obtain information from the police. It also noted that it had discussed CCTV with the resident and would ask the HO to follow this up with all residents as this came with a cost.
4. It noted that it failed to acknowledge, in its stage two response, that it had overlooked many of the resident’s points at stage one. It also accepted that the management of the resident’s request to add her husband as a joint tenant had fallen below its expected standard.
The landlord subsequently concluded that it would offer a further £100 compensation for the failure to meet the service standard in regards to the request for joint tenancy, and £150 for failing to acknowledge all of the resident’s concerns at stage one.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by her neighbour.

Under the landlord’s ASB procedure, for each ASB case, the landlord must record all actions and outcomes on its internal system. The procedure explains that the landlord must make clear its reasoning for any actions taken (or not taken) and its log should be detailed, clear and factual.
As such, upon receiving the resident’s allegation of ASB perpetrated by her neighbour, the landlord should have noted the residents report and any follow up action it took at this time. As per the landlord’s procedure, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord contacted the complainant within one working day of her report, to establish what had happened, whether there was an immediate risk of harm, whether she believed that a crime had been committed, and for the landlord to have assessed whether this amounted to harassment. As the landlord’s procedure indicates, any conclusion could subsequently be detailed on the landlord’s relevant system.
It is clear, however, from the lack of records provided by the landlord that it did not do this. The landlord has been unable to evidence any of the action that it took in response to the resident’s initial report of ASB and while the resident has indicated that she received a call from the landlord on 5 August 2020, considerably later than the timeframe set out in the landlord’s ASB procedure, it does not appear that the ASB issue was discussed. This was inappropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, upon receiving the resident’s allegations that her neighbour had been shouting at her kids and had approached her unreasonably to ask her kids to stop playing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made contact with both parties to obtain more details on the issue (via formal or informal interview, as its procedure says it will). In doing so, the landlord would have been able to potentially verify the resident’s claims, to obtain a better understanding of the situation (and whether it did indeed constitute ASB), and to consider whether any intervening action was required.
Where the landlord considered the matter to be of no immediate or serious risk, but was satisfied that this was an ASB issue, it could have properly progressed this matter to its investigation stage. It also could have set out for the resident the steps it would be taking and the evidence it needed to see, in order to take intervening /enforcement action. Alternatively, if it considered the matter not to be ASB, but rather, to be a neighbour dispute, it still could have offered the resident some support (by discussing any reasonable solutions with her) while setting out the reasons why it was limited in the action it could take.
The Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence that the landlord did this, however. Despite the resident expressing on 20 September 2020 that her family were being filmed and intimidated by the neighbour, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the landlord took the residents reports seriously. This was inappropriate.
The resident has confirmed that at some point, the landlord did advise her that reports of criminal behaviour needed to be made to the police. This was appropriate given that she had reported that her car had been scratched by her neighbour and was in line with the landlord’s procedure. While allegations were made, it does not appear that the resident was able to present any evidence of this being perpetrated by her neighbour.
It was also appropriate that in the landlord’s complaint response, it explained that it would be working with the police to follow up on any evidence found. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s assertion that upon speaking to the resident (presumably on or around the landlord’s stage two response), it was confirmed that there had been no recent incidents.
Still, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have demonstrated that as well as relying on the police to follow up on any criminal damage, the resident could also rely on it to follow up on her reports of intimidation and unconsented videoing and would seek to play an active role in resolving the conflict. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord did this.
The landlord also did not dispute, as the resident suggested on 7 April 2021, that it failed to advise her on the need to accrue evidence to support her case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fence and shed built by her neighbour, which she asserted caused a safety issue.

The Ombudsman has been unable to verify when the landlord first took steps in response to the resident’s complaint. While the landlord has suggested that it undertook an inspection of the resident’s neighbour’s property soon after her report, it has provided this Service with no evidence of this.
It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord explained to the resident in its stage one response that soon after its call with the resident in August 2020, its legal team sent a formal notice to the neighbour advising that both the fence and shed needed to be removed. The landlord assured the resident that this had been identified as a breach of tenancy / planning laws and would therefore be pursuing the matter.
It was also reasonable that the landlord was transparent about its consideration of the neighbour’s request to extend the deadline in which the installations needed to be removed. This was set out in its stage one response.
As the resident highlighted in January 2021, however, three months after the initial deadline for removal, the landlord could have kept her up to date on the progress of this matter and any new deadline agreed. Given her concerns about risks the installations presented for her own property, this would have enabled the landlord to better manage the resident’s concerns. It does not appear that the landlord provided the resident with an update on the matter until its stage two response on 21 April 2021, three months later. It therefore delayed in providing the resident with assurance that her safety concerns were being taken seriously and to provide her with advice on how best to secure her property pending legal action.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that within the landlord’s stage two response, it explained to the resident that it was attempting to pursue legal action against her neighbour and that this matter was being chased in order to progress this as quickly as possible. It was reasonable that the landlord recommended that in the meantime, to ensure the resident’s safety, she needed to continue to lock her balcony door and windows. While this was not a new solution, the Ombudsman accepts that residents are expected to secure their homes in this way ordinarily.
Still, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s communication could have been better. Noting the length of time which passed between the landlord’s stage one and two responses, and with no updates provided to the resident between this time, the landlord failed to manage her concerns as this Service would have expected.
While a risk assessment was not obligated, it might have offered the resident some assurance that any new threats to her safety brought about by the installations had been considered and that no immediate action was required. This also would have been a reasonable consideration in the landlord’s decision to extend the deadline for removal of the installations. The Ombudsman can see that the resident requested whether this had been done in September 2020, however received no response from the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to add her husband to the tenancy agreement.

It is unclear when the resident first requested to have her husband added to the tenancy agreement. This is as despite the Ombudsman’s request for such records, the landlord has been unable to provide this.
In any case, the Ombudsman can see that the resident asserted within her further complaint in September 2020 that she had been waiting for the landlord to arrange this for almost a year and the landlord did not dispute this.
In light of the alleged delay, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged for this to take place soon after the resident’s complaint in September 2020. It does not appear that the landlord addressed this matter until seven months later.
At this time, however, the landlord did confirm that it would make arrangements for the resident to begin completing the appropriate forms and did so on 21 April 2021.
While it was unclear, on later review, whether the resident had returned these forms, the landlord did recognise that it had not offered the standard of service that it would have hoped to. It also noted that it had failed to respond to the resident within its stage one complaint and to acknowledge this oversight at stage two. It therefore made an offer of £100 compensation in September 2021.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable. Although it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have recognised its omissions within its two stage complaints process, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord eventually did enough to put things right. It has therefore been concluded that reasonable redress was offered which satisfactorily resolved this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s alleged outstanding repair issues, specifically the water ingress from the above property, works to the kitchen / kitchen cabinets, and the damp and mould in her property.

As a result of the lack of records provided, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify when the resident first reported her need for repairs to the landlord, the list of repairs she required, or the steps taken by the landlord to resolve them. This has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of matters.
The Ombudsman would normally expect landlords to have a system to manage and retain records of any and all action undertaken in the delivery of its service. A full audit trail enables landlords to evidence for themselves, and for the Ombudsman where it becomes necessary, that the appropriate steps have been taken. In this case, however, it is clear that the landlord has not done so.
Looking at the records that have been made available, nonetheless, the Ombudsman has noted that on 20 September 2020, the resident alleged that she had been waiting on several repairs for more than a year. It does not appear that the landlord challenged this assertion.
As the resident had not specifically set out the list of repairs she was waiting on within this complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought to confirm this. This would have enabled the landlord to begin arranging works if it had not done so already and to communicate its plan of action to the resident.
Contrary to this, however, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord took any action in the months that followed the resident’s complaint. In the absence of contact, the resident subsequently explained (in her further complaint in January 2021) that she had been waiting for her kitchen ceiling to be plastered for over a year and that her kitchen cabinet doors required changing. She reported that she had also experienced a leak for many years which impacted her bathroom light and had been dealing with mould in the property for some time.
Under the landlord’s repair policy, it explains that its repairs staff will endeavour to undertake works within 20 working days of a resident’s report. Therefore, if the landlord believed this to be a new request for repair, contact should have been made with the resident (at minimum) and confirmation given that the repairs would be completed within 20 working days.
It would have been further appropriate, given the resident’s assertions that the plastering of her kitchen ceiling had remained outstanding for more than a year, and that there had been an ongoing leak / mould, for the landlord to have considered its records to establish whether this work was indeed significantly overdue and if so, treated this with some urgency. It does not appear that the landlord did either of these things, however.
In the landlord’s stage two response, seven months after the resident’s initial complaint, it asserted that it had inspected the resident’s kitchen cabinets, and that this would be placed on to its kitchen replacement programme for 2022/2023. The landlord also asserted that the leak had since been rectified and that the damp at the resident’s property had been surveyed and was awaiting a date for the commencement of works. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any these actions took place but notes that the resident did not contend this.
While these were appeared to be fair steps, in the absence of such records, the Ombudsman has also been unable to assess when these actions took place and the extent by which the landlord’s response was delayed, keeping the 20-working day timeframe in mind, following the residents original report.
The Ombudsman has subsequently determined that that the landlord’s failure to keep accurate and up-to-date records has hindered this Service’s ability to properly assess its handling of the resident’s repairs. An order has subsequently been made with regards to its record keeping.
It has also been noted that the landlord’s final response made no comments on whether the plastering of the resident’s ceiling was addressed during this time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be granted a direct offer for a new home.

As per the landlord’s Allocations and Lettings policy, while its properties for transfer are generally advertised through a Choice Based Letting Scheme (CBLS), it is able to make transfer applicants a direct offer. Residents registered for a transfer are awarded a priority banding based on how their housing needs impact their circumstances, and in some cases, will be approved for a direct offer (or management transfer) and awarded the highest priority – Band A.
The Ombudsman can see that as a result of the resident’s experience with her neighbour, the outstanding repairs, and the fact that her property was statutorily overcrowded, she requested that the landlord furnish her with a direct transfer offer to a new property.
It was subsequently not unreasonable that the HO explored options for a direct move for the resident. Due to the lack of records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to see what was discussed with the resident, however has ascertained that the HO agreed to put the residents application forward for a direct offer on or around this time. The Ombudsman has seen the application made by the HO for a management transfer.
It is clear to the Ombudsman, however, that the resident’s request for a direct offer was mismanaged. Through consideration of the landlord’s priority banding criteria, the Ombudsman recognises, as the landlord confirmed in its final response, that the resident would have only satisfied the criterion for Band B status.
It is therefore unclear why the resident was advised that her application had been approved and that she would be moved once an appropriate property became available. The misinformation was inappropriate and given her housing situation and that she had been chasing the matter over a number of months, this would have been particularly disappointing. The Ombudsman notes that approximately four months had passed in which the resident was provided with unclear information regarding her transfer status and was encouraged to complete unnecessary forms. This process was further protracted by the landlord’s changes in staff and internal systems but should not have resulted in an adverse impact on the resident.
In the landlord’s final response, it accepted that it had incorrectly advised the resident that she had been approved for a management transfer and that she would be granted Band A status. The landlord also acknowledged that this would have caused some distress and inconvenience.
It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of redress (£100, when divided between the two issues) in recognition of the misinformation given to the resident and the stress/inconvenience. With consideration of the time taken to establish that the resident was not actually entitled to a direct offer, and the gravity of the impact this would have had on her, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation fell short. The Ombudsman has subsequently determined that the landlord failed to offer satisfactory redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy explains that where a complaint is made, it will aim to resolve the complaint as quickly as reasonably possible. This will generally be within two working days of receipt, and a formal written complaint response will be provided at stage one of its two stage process, within 10 working days.
It was therefore inappropriate, upon raising her complaint on 27 July 2020, that the landlord failed to provide the resident with an acknowledgement of her complaint, and more so that it failed to provide the resident with a formal complaint response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did contact the resident on 5 August 2020 however at this time, almost two weeks later, failed to address the matters complained about by the resident (or to document the details of the telephone call).
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it had noted the resident’s dissatisfaction in July 2020, and that it would be taking matters seriously to resolve the issue for her, meant that she subsequently felt the need to re-raise her concerns in September 2020, two months later.
Amongst the issues reported by the resident, she brought to the landlord’s attention that it had failed to consider her initial complaint in accordance with its guidance. Despite doing so, however, it does not appear that the landlord adjusted its approach.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it subsequently acknowledged the resident’s further complaint within the two-day time frame set out in its process, but rather, still failed to offer the resident a complaint response within the 10-working day timeframe. This was unacceptable. The landlord additionally failed, within its stage one response, to acknowledge its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
While the landlord did provide a formal response on this occasion, it limited its comments to the matter of the shed / fence, and completely ignored the remaining issues complained about. This was contrary to good complaint handling practice and indeed to the guidance set out within this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
Within the Code, landlords are required to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord failed to set out its position in response to all of the points raised by the resident.
Instead, the resident’s correspondence suggests that the landlord had advised her that another member of staff would address her outstanding points at a later time. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence, however, that the landlord returned to these issues until it offered its stage two response. It should be noted that the landlord also did not respond to the questions raised by the resident on 7 April 2021.
Adding to this, despite the resident’s further complaint in January 2021 following the landlord’s stage one response, the landlord again failed to act in accordance with its policy / process. While the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters, and despite its process suggesting that complaints at stage two would be responded to within 20 working days, the landlord failed to offer a formal response to the resident until April 2021. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectation prior to this time or advised the resident on the reasons for its delay.
While the landlord did offer a comprehensive response to the resident within its stage two reply, it did not consider the magnitude of its complaint handling omissions and overlooked many of its failings. It therefore made an offer of compensation (£100, when divided between the two issues) which fell significantly below what the Ombudsman would have expected. It is unsurprising that this offer fell short as this only accounted for its delay in escalating the complaint to stage two and the distress / inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord recognised upon reviewing the resident’s complaint later in September 2021 that it had not done enough to put things right. It recognised that it had not considered the fact that it had overlooked the resident’s concerns at stage one, within its stage two response. It therefore advised the resident that a further offer of £150 would be awarded in light of this.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, while this was appropriate, it still was not satisfactory in recognising the extent of the landlord’s failings. The landlord also should have recognised its failure to act in accordance with its policy / process, to keep the resident informed throughout the process on the reasons for the delay, the length of time it took for the resident to exhaust its complaints process as a result of its delayed responses, and its failure to put things right within its initial two-stage process. It is also worth noting that the landlord’s handling of the complaint delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by her neighbour.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fence and shed built by her neighbour, which she asserted caused a safety issue.
3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s alleged outstanding repair issues, specifically the water ingress from the above property, works to the kitchen / kitchen cabinets, and the damp and mould in her property.
4. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be granted a direct offer for a new home.
5. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to add her husband to the tenancy agreement, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to this investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has determined that there were service failures as:
1. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of ASB in line with its policy (specifically within the timeframe set out), and to make appropriate records as its policy explains it will. The landlord has been unable to evidence that it took any action on learning of the issues the resident was experiencing, and the Ombudsman is not satisfied that it demonstrated to the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously. At minimum, the landlord should have offered the resident advice on the importance of accruing evidence and how she could do this for herself, to present to both the police and its ASB team. It is noted, however, that it was not until its final response nine months later, that it signposted the resident to the police. The Ombudsman does note that a further discussion was had in relation to the ASB in September 2021.
2. The landlord’s communication was poor. The resident was not kept up to date or informed on how it intended to approach the installations during the several months between the landlord’s complaint responses and therefore was unaware of when the neighbour was required to remove this by, despite enquiring. This was unreasonable. Given the resident’s safety concerns, communication from the landlord would have enabled it to better manage her expectations and to offer some assurance that an end was in sight. The landlord offered no reassurance that her safety concerns had been taken on board.
3. The landlord has provided this Service with insufficient records to enable the Ombudsman to properly assess its handling of the resident’s repairs. This is unacceptable, particularly as landlord’s are expected to have and to maintain a record keeping system. In the Ombudsman’s view, the lack of records has hindered the resident in seeking resolution from this Service and has therefore been deemed a service failure. The Ombudsman has noted other outstanding matters which will be included in the orders made.
4. While the landlord did make an attempt to recognise the impact that the misinformation provided to the resident would have had on her and her family, in consideration of all circumstances of the case and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer of compensation fell short. The Ombudsman has therefore revised the compensation offer.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was contrary to good practice, to its internal policy, and to the guidance detailed within the Code. While the landlord did attempt to recognise this both within its stage two response and later in September 2021, as the Ombudsman has demonstrated above, it still failed to account for several of its errors. There was subsequently still maladministration.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately, in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to add her husband to the tenancy agreement. The landlord recognised that a sub-standard service had been offered and subsequently made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This was fair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to make the following awards of compensation:
1. £100 to account for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £100 to account for its poor communication with regards to the fence / shed built and her safety concerns.
3. £250 to account for its poor record keeping. This has impacted this investigation as a whole, but particularly the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s handling of the alleged outstanding repairs.
4. £150 to account for the misinformation provided to the resident and the distress / inconvenience caused.
5. £350 to account for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint (including the distress and inconvenience).
The above payments (totalling £950) should be made to the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination and should replace the original offers of compensation made by the landlord.
The landlord should also, if it has not done so already, arrange works for the plastering of the resident’s kitchen ceiling and mould to be addressed within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

Following the findings in this case, the landlord should ensure that moving forward it puts a system in place which enables it to record and retain (irrespective of staff changeover) a reasonable audit trail of any actions taken in the delivery of its service (for a reasonable period of time). This would include contemporaneous notes where telephone conversations are had with a resident. As the Ombudsman has stated, the landlord should ensure that it is able to evidence for itself, and for this Service should it be necessary, that the appropriate steps have been taken. This will also enable it to reflect on its performance and to learn from outcomes, in line with the dispute resolution principles.